YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

Several messages in YEC approaches to empirical investigation made assertions as to the YEC premises. Here, I wish to give an alternative version. I am including a few parenthetic comments.YECs assume that: No doubt Faith and others would prefer that the YEC assumptions be described in terms of "the word of God". But that is not possible, because:

• Some people do not agree that God exists;
• Some people assert that the bible is the word of man, perhaps inspired by God but not the word of God;
• Some people believe that science is the way to find the word of God.

Thus my version is written in purely physicalist terms, so as to not depend on individual and personal ideas about God.

If that is correct, then debate is pointless. Not just debate here, but any kind of debate at all.If the premises are settled, then all that is required is formal logic. There are plenty of proof verification computer programs to do that. Humans need not be involved in settling truth issues if the premises are settled and non-disputable.In ordinary debating, the premises are always debatable. They are what much of the debate is about.

No, there is no such premise. However, I am willing to participate in a one-on-one debate with you on whether there is such a premise. Are you equally willing? I see this being asserted as a premise. But it is a foolish premise unless God Himself would actually appear and make the argument directly.What those who assert this premise appear to mean is that they, finite mortal humans though they are, have the right to judge science. And they ascribe their own argument to God.Personally, I would think it quite arrogant of me to tell God what His words are. And I find it quite contrary to the ideas of evangelical Christianity (in which I was raised) to see fundamentalists telling God what are His words. You seem to misunderstand the nature and purpose of debate. I have the impression that you think of debate as a way of establishing truth. But truth is what it is, independent of debate. A debate can never establish truth.In my mind, there are several purposes for debating:

to allow me to present my ideas as clearly as possible, so that others may see what they are;

to support my ideas with evidence and argumentation, to the best of my ability; to allow my ideas and evidence to be challenged, so that I may learn what are their weaknesses, and what are the weaknesses in the ways that I am presenting them;

to listen to opposing ideas, to be able to challenge those opposing ideas so that the response to my challenges can help me better understand what those opposing ideas are;

to attempt to persuade others of the value of the ideas I am supporting.

I don't know what world you live in. In the world I live in (outside of EvC), there are many different interpretations of the Bible. Welcome to the real world. That confusion is why there are so many different religious denominations, including many different evangelical protestant denominations. I was raised under the principle of sola scriptura. My understanding of that principle, is that the pope is not an authority for my beliefs. But it equally says that my pastor is not an authority, and that a body of theology is not an authority. I can take what my pastor says, what Billy Graham preaches, what the body of theology says, as guides but I cannot take them as authoritative. Ultimately, scripture is the authority, and it is between me and God as to how I shall come to interpret that scripture. You are right. It has been established -- by the pope. But evangelical Christianity rejects that authority, and indeed it rejects all human authority. It seems to me that you are announcing your membership in a new YEC cult that has rejected evangelical protestant principles.

I have heard a number of evangelical theologians speak on the issue. While most preferred literalism (and the others did not reveal their own positions), they agreed that an acceptance of the theory of evolution is permitted. Or, as it is usually presented, a belief in evolution is within the pale of orthodoxy. I think you are mistaken. But I am no expert in theology, so I will wait and see if others comment.

Here is a statement from the Southern Baptist web page.

quote:

---

Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.

---

I never suggested that "all individual interpretations are equal." Rather, I suggested that it is up to believers to decide for themselves what is the proper interpretation.Here are some quotes from http://www.baptisthistory.org/priesthood.htm (the emphasis is added by me)

quote:

---

Because Jesus came, died, and was resurrected, priesthood changed. Believers no longer need to have a priest; they are priests themselves. Hierarchy no longer exists. All are equal. Each believer as a responsible priest is the New Testament way.

---

quote:

---

Being a priest involves individual and community responsibilities. First, I am a priest as an individual. I am my own priest. I have direct access to God. I can go to God directly in prayer. I can read the Scripture for myself and ask God’s guidance in understanding it. I must seek the wisdom and teaching of others, but I can also search for the meaning with the Spirit’s guidance by myself. I am responsible before God for my behavior and my beliefs. I cannot make someone else responsible for my relationship or lack of relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

The priesthood of all believers is a core principle of Baptist doctrine. We insist that each person can interpret Scripture as an individual; that only believers should be baptized; that each church can govern itself; that all of our connections to local, regional, state, and national bodies are voluntary; and that every person has a right to religious liberty. All of these basic beliefs of Baptists underscore our belief that each person is competent in religious matters and that each believer is a priest.

---

No, that is not the disagreement. I should have changed the subtitle to clarify that. Not at all. I haven't suggested that all are equal. I am saying that the Church does not impose an interpretation, but requires each member to read the scriptures himself, no doubt with appropriate guidance. Don't you find it interesting (and significant) that they call it a Confession of Faith, and not a Doctrine?What I am objecting to, is the way you are describing your YEC premises. If you were to point to some list of YEC articles of faith, and declare those to be the YEC premises, that might be reasonable. But instead, you are using terms such as "word of God" to describe these premises. You are, in effect, dictating to God what his words are. Most conservative churches are very careful to avoid doing that, and for good reason.What is the proper interpretation of scripture (what is the word of God) is vigorously debated in evangelical churches. It might be reasonable for you to say that YEC articles of faith are not up for debate. But to assert your own interpretation, declare that to be the word of God and to say that is not up for debate -- that is to violate the basic principles of evangelical protestantism.

As an educator, I try to provide appropriate guidance to my students. I do not impose on them any doctrine to which they are to adhere.In the setting of a church, appropriate guidance would be to explain common understandings of the scripture. It would not be to require adherence to those understandings. What dogmatic authority? I have not asserted that I am an authority on this.As far as I know, Jimmy Carter is a southern Baptist. I suspect that his understanding of the scriptures might be quite a bit different from what you are reading into the southern Baptist documents. Indeed you do. I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas. I would say that you are the challenger here. You appear to be challenging the conventional wisdom. I have posted quotations and links to support my position. In typical YEC fashion you simply dismiss the evidence without argument.You are right, that debate with YECs is impossible. But it has nothing to do differing premises.

I teach my students method and understanding, so that they may discern truth by themselves. If I were, instead, to emphasize teaching truth, then I might forever cripple the ability of my students to discern.I won't comment on the remainder of your post, since you have indicated that you do not wish to discuss it further.

I'm not interested in starting a thread on baptist theology.I did post evidence. You said you disagreed, and simply dismissed it. I can't see the point in posting more evidence.

As I see it, I have provided evidence. You have disagreed and simply dismissed my evidence without actually providing any contrary evidence.I will allow the record to stand as it is. Nothing will convince you that you are wrong. However, people with inquiring minds will read these pages. They will read what I have posted, and they will read your dismissal. I hope they will also follow some of the links, and consult other evidence, that they may judge the issue for themselves.As further evidence, I suggest the wikipedia entry on Sola Scriptura as a starting point. Here are a couple of selections from that entry: and

I am pointing this out, not to comment on its silliness. In fact, the quoted text has been responded to in several messages. It has even been nominated in Message 52. So obviously nobody had difficulty understanding what Faith meant when she wrote that.My point is to note how easily and how naturally we use symbolic speech, to the extent that we often completely ignore what the text literally says. And this in a context where some people are insisting on a literalist reading of genesis text that is obviously symbolic.